Article on Wikileaks about its usefulness

Note: this article is by "Buzzle staff and agencies" and can be found at: http://www.buzzle.com/articles/does-wikileaks-empower-the-public-or-simply-create-more-problems.html 

Does WikiLeaks Empower the Public or Simply Create More Problems

WikiLeaks has recently published a massive inventory of top secret U.S. Military documents detailing various aspects of the war in Afghanistan.

With the recent publication by WikiLeaks of tens of thousands of classified documents from the U.S. Military and other agencies related to the war in Afghanistan, some are calling into question the value of the organization’s services. There are a few things more sensational in journalism than top secret or classified information being made public without the authorization or complicity of the secretive parties involved. Throughout recent history, such revelations tend to bring down political regimes and expose conspiracies, the depths of which the general public can only begin to understand.

As WikiLeaks has begun publishing secret documents related to the war in Afghanistan, it seems appropriate to ponder exactly how much value this type of service offers the public at large. Certainly, there is value to having a media arm that is capable of and willing to publish secret documentation without fear of consequences from the powers that be. That alone is certainly worth something, especially in instances where corruption and injustice are exposed to the eyes of the world. The value begins to get a little skewed, however, when top secret documents are published that can have an adverse impact on individuals with no knowledge of the documents themselves. That would seem a likely outcome of this most recent "WikiLeak", although in fairness to the organization, they seem to go to great lengths to vet the information they receive in order to prevent such instances, if they are in fact avoidable.

Julian Assange, the founder of WikiLeaks, is an appropriately shadowy figure in his own right, although to his credit he has been available to make statements in support of his company’s mission and their actions, even when they find themselves under scrutiny from the most powerful governments and intelligence organizations in the world. And among some of the information in the newly leaked Afghan documents, there seems to be growing support for claims that Pakistani military and intelligence officials have been actively supporting the Taliban even while U.S. efforts are ongoing to defeat them. This would seem to be very interesting information for the American public, but it’s hard to quantify exactly what such information means.

To further illustrate the complexity of the issues surrounding WikiLeaks, the site’s About Us page reads, in part, "We believe that transparency in government activities leads to reduced corruption, better government and stronger democracies. All governments can benefit from increased scrutiny by the world community, as well as their own people." And while that statement in and of itself seems wholly true, it still creates problems when the necessary transparency and scrutiny is provided by a third party who ultimately decides just how transparent it wants to be with the information it has received. It’s also difficult to determine context when only certain documents are "leaked", when others may exist that refute or question the "facts" in the leaked documents. Are the leaked documents that most relevant to the issues at hand, or are they simply drafts or documents that have contributed to reaching a much different conclusion, not discussed in the documents themselves?

When documents are leaked that reveal new information or provide clarification on a specific situation or event, it’s difficult to place a qualitative value on the information without a complete picture of "all" of the documentation involved. Suffice to say that we’ll probably never receive that level of transparency in any government, nor would that necessarily be a good thing.

And when only a portion of the picture of any situation is revealed, are we running the risk of demonizing the wrong parties or of perhaps adding more misunderstanding and corruption to a situation where it would have otherwise been avoided? These are difficult questions that must be considered and answered as much as possible each time WikiLeaks posts new information on its site. The intent of the site appears to be in the right place, but the likelihood of maintaining a positive impact when releasing otherwise secret information seems extremely remote, at best.

Once armed with any new and revealing information, the general public is still helpless, for the most part, to effect any immediate change on its own. For that to occur, a new election cycle must occur (where democratic governments are involved), and by then the primary players in any government cover-up or conspiracy will have had plenty of time to cover their asses and create new stories to explain the exposed information. At the end of the day, it’s difficult to leverage any information from WikiLeaks as citizens, but I suppose it’s possible to use the leaked information to prod legislators and other leaders to act appropriately in the face of the danger that they themselves might one day be exposed.